Go to page

Old-Salt

I'm not one for starting threads folks but this interests me and I would like to hear other people's thoughts on it.

I am a little mixed with it because they are Brits and I don't like the thought of them being left to rot over there, however I also believe (on the strength of what I've read) that they were aware of the weapons and ammo on board and therefore at the very least they were/are slightly compliant with the legality of the situation. And if I'm really harsh then constantly hearing about them being veterans who fought for their country etc annoys me because it has (unless I'm missing something) nothing whatsoever to do with the crime allegedly committed.

IF they have broken the law then why shouldn't they face justice? Why should the PM or anyone else step in for them? It's my belief that they were not defending their country but were earning very good money providing maritime security.

I know this will read harshly but like I say I'm a bit unsure of what I actually think about this case so I look forward to readings others take on it.

Mods, I couldn't find this anywhere else but if I've monged it on the search function then by all means bin it.

LE

The test I always apply is "How would we react if the foreign country in questions PM demanded we freed their people here for similar offences".

I'm afraid that they've been found guilty of a crime in a court of law and will have to do the time. I can't see any reason why the PM should get involved, and as these sort of diplomatic requests always eat away at the available pool of diplomatic 'brownie points' that we may need to draw on for a genuinely worthwhile case, rather than people willing to get on the maritime security gravy train.

The idea that the PM can magically get someone released for committing a crime is sweet, but ultimately pointless. The world is full of places with odd laws, lengthy prison sentences and the ability to catch out the unwary. If you choose to go into a risky line of work, do so with your eyes wide open and a willingness to do time if caught, rather than expect the UK to bail you out due to your own lack of preparedness.

LE

I'm not one for starting threads folks but this interests me and I would like to hear other people's thoughts on it.

I am a little mixed with it because they are Brits and I don't like the thought of them being left to rot over there, however I also believe (on the strength of what I've read) that they were aware of the weapons and ammo on board and therefore at the very least they were/are slightly compliant with the legality of the situation. And if I'm really harsh then constantly hearing about them being veterans who fought for their country etc annoys me because it has (unless I'm missing something) nothing whatsoever to do with the crime allegedly committed.

IF they have broken the law then why shouldn't they face justice? Why should the PM or anyone else step in for them? It's my belief that they were not defending their country but were earning very good money providing maritime security.

I know this will read harshly but like I say I'm a bit unsure of what I actually think about this case so I look forward to readings others take on it.

Mods, I couldn't find this anywhere else but if I've monged it on the search function then by all means bin it.

Old-Salt

I agree with that 100% and the more I think about it the more I think that the reason I'm a bit mixed on it is simply down to an ex mob loyalty type value or some such hangover from my time in (left April this year and loving civi street!) anyway I digress, the point on how would we react is a very good and valid point because I'm pretty sure we would be telling them to wind it in! Like you, I fully believe they understood the risks before boarding on the contract but the cash at that time for maritime security was excellent so to them the benefits outweighed the risks!

Stacker,

Cheers for the link mate what's your thoughts on this? I don't like the idea of them being stuck out there but they broke their law so I don't have any logical argument for brining them home or having the government step in for them.

The Gimp,

I never thought of it as a political angle, I suppose it could be but my thoughts are more along the lines of they were involved in one way or another in a crime and are now paying the price.

Vampire,

That's the way I'm leaning on this. The ex forces,veterans that fought for their country etc piece from the families is ripping my knittin. I wonder if they would ask for leniency for a ex forces 12yr veteran who had fought for their country who had broken into their house or committed some other crime against them......................I doubt it very much!

The use of mercenaries would without doubt be an interesting thread drift/inclusion but in this and every other part of the world mercs and or private security work almost hand in hand with the forces and in a lot of cases provide niche expertise on jobs that the governments would prefer a little distance from! Some are funded by back door government grants and fed ex forces who have certain skill sets to fit particular roles, granted this happens more in America but it does and is happening here!

I agree in principle but having known a few mates and acquaintances who have done and still do both maritime and ground based gun slinging I also believe they will have been told about the weapons and the laws regarding them and back then paid bloody well to accept the risks associated with that type of work.

Didn't something similar happen to G4s in Iraq on a border crossing point? Told to open the truck said they didn't have the keys and were carrying clothing and equipment for the in country teams with manifest papers backing them up only for the Iraqi cop to have none of it and bust the lock where they found various long and short barrel weapons mainly AK's and C8's with Sigs and Glocks along with loads of 5:11 tactical gear. I think the "operators" were jailed and I believe after a fair bit of time in an Iraqi nick (FCUK THAT!!!) G4s paid the government what they wanted to have the lads freed.

I genuinely believe nobody goes on these fairly lucrative (less so these days) contracts with their eyes anything other than fully open!

LE

LE

I agree in principle but having known a few mates and acquaintances who have done and still do both maritime and ground based gun slinging I also believe they will have been told about the weapons and the laws regarding them and back then paid bloody well to accept the risks associated with that type of work.

Didn't something similar happen to G4s in Iraq on a border crossing point? Told to open the truck said they didn't have the keys and were carrying clothing and equipment for the in country teams with manifest papers backing them up only for the Iraqi cop to have none of it and bust the lock where they found various long and short barrel weapons mainly AK's and C8's with Sigs and Glocks along with loads of 5:11 tactical gear. I think the "operators" were jailed and I believe after a fair bit of time in an Iraqi nick (FCUK THAT!!!) G4s paid the government what they wanted to have the lads freed.

I genuinely believe nobody goes on these fairly lucrative (less so these days) contracts with their eyes anything other than fully open!

Fair points, I agree not the lads faults directly but I genuinely believe they must've had a good knowledge of what was on the boat and what laws/violations etc they could/would be breaking if they strayed off course. As far as these maritime or personnel security details go Unless you strike it lucky straight away then you have to be top end ex forces if you are going to get a reputable company hiring your for task/VIP specific contracts (afterwards they then tend to continually hire the known and proven operator!) otherwise you have to take what's left be it feast or famine and as I'm sure you know you at that end of the scale you just don't know what level your colleagues never mind your "locals" are at.

Would the mitigation argument not have to use ignorance as a start point to argue from? If so I personally don't believe that would stand up at all.

Like you say the sentence received is extremely lenient considering the actual charges! And also like you point out 5yrs inside in reality equates to 2.5yrs or less if you gain trustee status (if that even applies in India) UK/US same charge is a minimum of 10yrs no parole I believe. (I think Paul Ferris got 10 dropped to 7 on appeal........ def not sure on that but it's close to that)

Have you read the book shantaram? (Fictional autobiographical true crime novel) The descriptions of Indian cops,prison staff and prisons is horrifying! That said if your bored it's a brilliant book.